Posted
by
Soulskillon Monday April 30, 2012 @03:12PM
from the touching-the-sky dept.

darthcamaro writes "On 9/11, terrorists took the lives of thousands of Americans — and removed a pair of icons from the New York City skyline. For the last 10+ years, The Empire State Building was the tallest building in NYC, but that changed today. 'Poking into the sky, the first column of the 100th floor of 1 World Trade Center will bring the tower to a height of 1,271 feet, making it 21 feet higher than the Empire State Building.'"

I actually find it interesting and a feat of engineering to have such a tall building. What is up with all the trolls? Get a life you guys. This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. If there was no mention on Slashdot I would think that someone was asleep at the wheel.

First collateral damage in a warfront is usually not considered murder. Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other. Considering that only 14% were actually from Americans -- in a warfront -- I would say the American military did an outstanding job of limiting civilian casualties. Terrorist/Extremists planting pressure trigger bombs in the road, and along comes a civilian does not make the US Military responsible, sorry. Go troll and FUD elsewhere.

Iraq had an army that was keeping order, preventing the Shi'ites and the Sunnis from killing each other. The US invaded, defeated and disbanded that army. The results were predictable.

Most of the deaths, though, aren't from being shot/bombed/etc, but from natural causes - exacerbated by the lack of basic utilities and services (water, power, hospitals) caused by the war. If you include those deaths, then 600,000+ extra people died by June 2006 (article on the Lancet surveys [wikipedia.org] and references therein), or pr

"First collateral damage in a warfront is usually not considered murder."

Yes, except we have mountains of evidence for cases where the damage wasn't collateral, and was just outright murder, or at best, manslaughter due to gross incompetence.

"Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other."

Yeah, and I hear 99% of stats are bullshit too.

"Considering that only 14% were actually from Americans -- in a warfront -- I would say the American military did an outstanding job of limiting civilian casualties."

Yes, that's why the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were so desperate for the Americans to stay, because they'd done such an awesome job of just that.

No seriously, American military forces are good at one thing - destruction. The fact they just can't handle hearts and minds operations and limit civilian casualties is why they've failed to achieve their objectives in most military actions they've engaged in since the second world war - from Korea, to Vietnam, to Lebanon, to Somalia, to Iraq, to Afghanistan amongst others.

Anglo-French air strikes in Libya are an example of doing a good job of limiting civilian casualties (regardless of whether you think the action itself was justified).

"Terrorist/Extremists planting pressure trigger bombs in the road, and along comes a civilian does not make the US Military responsible, sorry. Go troll and FUD elsewhere."

Well, it kind of does if the whole reason that IED is in the road in the first place is because they were trying to get Americans the fuck out of the country.

Yes, "collateral damage" and "accidental casualties" caused by a government-sponsored "war" launched for the sake of exerting control over recently-socialized oil pipelines are indeed murder. So is re-electing someone after they've started that "war."

I very much doubt that more than a small number of the people killed in the Middle East wars of the first decade of the 21st century were anti-American. It is this kind of demonisation of "the other" that is the pretext for wars.

The people in the towers weren't guilty of anything either.

Dust on an old man's sleeve
Is all the dust burnt roses leave
Dust in the air suspended
Marks the place where a story ended

Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

The perpetrators were mainly Saudi, they trained in Afghanistan and the US public links all this with the war in Iraq - where a shitload of innocent people died, probably all of whom had nothing to do with 9/11. And even in Afghanistan a bucketload of innocent people died.

I don't think I ever met anyone who believed that Iraq was in retaliation for 9/11. Iraq was about the threat of Iraq having WMDs, at least at the time. There may have been some shoddy dialogue among idiots, but most people in the US--and certainly most educated people in the US--see the link between 9/11 and Iraq only in the more tenuous "9/11 put the country on a war footing" light.

I don't think I ever met anyone who believed that Iraq was in retaliation for 9/11.

Let me introduce you to Mr Anonymous Coward and Mr SuperKendall who posted above - both arguing over the 100,000's of civilian deaths that were due to 9/11 retaliation. That has only occurred in Iraq and nowhere near that number has occurred in Afghanistan.

And, of course, with both the Iraq and Afghanistan war, simply threatening war would have been enough.

Saddam, when he realized that the US wasn't interested in the fact he didn't have WMDs, had started negotiating some sort of surrender, trying to get immunity and sanctuary in some other Arab country for himself and his family, and in return handing Iraq over to whoever the hell the Americans wants.

The only reason he fought, in fact, was that he was (quite rightly) convinced that he'd be executed. So the

Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

That's a morally problematic stance to take. First of all, what's "many of those 10.000"? 1.000? 5.000? Let's say 5.000 for the sake of avoiding harder math. Ok, so the next step would be to take you and 16.665 like-minded individuals (plus a midget), put them in a group with 16.666 random people (plus a midget) and kill the whole group.

And I think the bluntness of the AC didn't really convey what I find to be a valid point: you should remember the ramifications. The most important lesson to learn, here, is that 9/11 didn't end with the building coming down. It resulted in much more people (including a lot of non-combatants) getting killed in two wars, an enourmous economic crisis, creation of the Patriot Act and the TSA etc. The reaction to the event was arguably worse than the attack itself, and if people forget about that and only think "honor our 3.000 and fuck the terrists", they are only fostering the kind of exploitable us v. them mentality that led to this political and economic nightmare to begin with.

well, for starters, how about actually waging war on those who attacked us? bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the taliban that hosted them left Afghanistan. ol Bin L was chilling and watching porn and porking his young wives for years after, laughing at us turning places where Al Q never was into Al Q recruiting grounds (e.g. Iraq and some others). years later, we label as that same "taliban" other groups disgruntled with foreign invaders, and in fact are negotiating with "taliban" because of course we will neve

For everyone 1 person that hates the US there's 5 that wish we'd come in and fix whatever crap is going on in their community.

This is a perfect example of the root cause of everything that is wrong with the USA: supremely arrogant, utterly self-deluded, smugly imbecillic and profoundly ignorant feeling of the Universe revolving around your ass.

From what I've seen traveling around the world (something that I am sure you did not deem necessary to form your opinion) is that if anything, your numbers are actually reversed: for every naive goofus who sees USA as a potential saviour, 5 see it for what it is: a self-important empire whose distinguishing feature is hypocritical pontification about "freedom" and "democracy" while depriving anyone who has something it wants of freedom, property and frequently life all the while propping up convenient dictators and absolute monarchs (see also: Saudi Arabia) all over the world.

And your general attitude just illustrates the point gloriously.

America isn't perfect but we're the best hope for the World and everyone knows it, that's why they loan us money until they're starving because they know if there's ever a problem we're the ones they can call.

Comedy gold. What was the last time anyone other than thieves and would-be robber barons hoping to profit from misery of their fellows actually asked you to show up and blow their country to smithereens in the name of "saving" it?

Or were you trying to be sarcastic by pointing out how USA rigged the world financial markets for its own benefit? Or more precisely for the benefit of its top 1%, who - amusingly enough - are these days busy abandoning what they sense is soon to be a rotting corpse of a has-been empire for some greener pastures...

You gotta be kidding. This is why I asked for anyone who is not a self-serving jackal asking you for "help". And so you list prime examples of the very thing I pointed out!

Libya: a bunch of radical islamists trying to overthrow a secular thug in order to establish Sharia law and persecute everyone who is not them. You and NATO helped in hopes of gaining preferential access to Libyan oil fields. Next.

It's 100.000, not 10.000, and it's still a very conservative estimate of the casualties of the American wars in the last decade.

The notion that "many of those 100.000" supported the events of 9/11 is plain ridiculous, particularly if you consider the average demographics of the war casualties (unharmed civilians from underdeveloped countries). Also, I would like to remind you that collective punishment is banned by the Geneve Treaty.

Still, nowadays world is much less safe and stable than 10 years ago, and Americans got robbed of a much deserved peace dividend that would have turned the US into a prosperous peaceful country.But you got just another big skyscraper so Go America, I guess.

They had already banished Osama long before 9/11. The government there, for all its own Muslim fundamentalism, is actually having quite the time keeping down the militant ones, and has executed many of them.

I actually don't understand the importance of not forgetting. It seems like a nice enough thing to say, but I want a genuine justification for why it should be remembered, as opposed to mourned and then moved past? I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but I think the United States penchant for remembering tragedies and not achievements is unhealthy for the national psyche in the long run.

We still "remember" Pearl Harbor. We still "remember" the Alamo. We still "remember" the Boston Massacre. But I'm pretty sure very few people are still angry at Japan/Mexico/Britain, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to use them as casus belli anytime soon.

Britain still "remembers" the Gunpowder Plot. France still remembers the Bastille. Both of those events are centuries in the past, yet they are still worth *remembering*.

There's nothing wrong with *remembering* that these things happened. There *is* a problem with obsessing over it and continuing to use it as justification for everything from invasions to the TSA. For example.

PS: We *do* remember achievements (the Apollo program, etc), even some we didn't really accomplish (who single-handedly beat the Nazis? We did!).

You make a good point. How many people know the political and economic decisions that led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? When I say we should not forget, I speak generically about not forgetting the past for fears of repetition. We should remember 9/11 in my OPINION as a combination of how building should be built, safety concerns with first responders, our governments (US) habit of arming and propping up power-hungry leaders to play political chess with our enemies. There is an awful lot we can learn from history. I think it is short sighted to just look to the future without learning from the past (mistakes or achievements).

That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).

That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).

But leave out the things that cast the U.S. to unfavorably, unless it is politically correct to do so (as with slavery). For example, the British burned the White House, but you'll rarely see a word in U.S. history books about the U.S. burning the houses of parliament in Canada first.

But leave out the things that cast the U.S. to unfavorably, unless it is politically correct to do so (as with slavery). For example, the British burned the White House, but you'll rarely see a word in U.S. history books about the U.S. burning the houses of parliament in Canada first.

Citation needed. Seriously - you're talking the war of 1812? I didn't know the US got that far into Canada.

York (present-day Toronto) was the seat of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. After the American army won the battle, the guys got a little nutty and started torching stuff. The American army never reached Ottawa, but at that time they had no reason to, as Ottawa would not come to be a prominent Canadian city until decades later.

You're absolutely right. The failure of our government to rebuild immediately after 9/11 was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. The new WTC tower is symbolic of nothing more than America's decline.

The WTC towers should have been built in the exact same place better and possibly taller. We're a bunch of pussies in this regards. Instead of building the ultimate "fuck you" to them, we instead snivel in a corner and build a bunch of memorials. I'm sorry, but it's not worth all that for 3,000 people. Etch their names in stone someplace else. On the outside, a wall, or insides someplace. But there's no reason to create nothing short of a shrine that only symbolizes cowardice!

"our government" Huh? AFAICT, "our government" didn't own the world trade center. If you happen to live in NY/NJ and you think of the Port Authority as "your government" I guess you could fault it for not rebuilding. But I'm still unclear why the hell a Port Authority would be in real estate to begin with...

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid there's been a serious misunderstanding.

"The United States of America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed on this planet. Our citizens spend more on the opening weekend of a movie than the GDP of 40% of the planet. We provide aid in the billions to countries all over the world. We have been to the moon. We can destroy any part of this earth as easily as drinking a cup of coffee.

*sips coffee*

"This was the master stroke by a group of madmen who wish to murder civilians in the name of god. We will not be going to war to punish those who have the misfortune of being near these madmen. We know who they are, we know where they are, and will will bring them to justice here in the USA to face murder charges. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they face the death penalty in New York county.

"In the meantime, we will show you what is meant by 'the most powerful nation on earth'. By the end of this year, we will rebuild those towers and your master stroke will be gone. Yes, those who were murdered are gone from this earth, and we grieve for their loss. But we are America, and we have faced tougher challenges before. You cannot attack us because we will always return, we will never forget, and we will never surrender.

"America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in God's kingdom. Our susp... citizens spend more on the opening weekend of a movie than the... ga... gadup... of 40$ of the planet. We provide AIDS to Africa. We are going to shoot down the moon, and we will sip coffee there.

*wipes coffee from tie*

"I masterfully stroked off a group of madmen.... God will murder the civilians. We are going to war! We know who you are, and we are going to punish you by bringing you to the USA. If you come to New York County, you are guilty, and we will charge you with the death penalty. Heh, heh. Just like Texas. String 'em high!

*realizes where he is*

"Ahem... In the meantime, we are the most powerful nation on earth. By the end of this year, we will be gone, and you will stroke your towers. Never forget... uh... never!... Never surrender! <approval-seeking grin> You cannot attack us, because we have tougher challengers, who murdered, and then left Earth for the Moon. Guess that's why we're shooting it down. We are America!

Yes being 21 feet taller than the tallest building in that city must have added so many huge technical challenges. Sure its impressive, but this isn't about impressive technical challenfes, its a nationalist hooray for us. Its drivel.

9/11 was a tragic event, but never forgotten? Why? what does remembering it teach us? I don't see any important lesson in it. Bad shit happens? Sometimes a few dedicated people will fuck shit up for other people?

Much more to remember is peoples terrible overreactions which continue to this very day. 9/11 was pretty forgetable compared to the backlash it caused. Compared to the massive expansion of govenrment securituy apparatus, compared to the exercises in airport security theater? Meh, 9/11 itself was just a few guys bringing some buildings down and killing a bunch of people.

There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.

There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.

So, what you are saying is that it isn't a repeatable strategy because people remember what happened last time? Interesting.

Yes, I get your point about the security theater, and agree. Personally, I think the terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because of that, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't remember the attack.

Yet April 19th came and went without a mention. On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Building was destroyed when 4 American terrorists exploded a cargo van full of explosives. 169 people died including 19 children under the age of 6 and over 680 people were injured.

People said we shouldn't forget the Oklahoma City bombing... yet we did...

Don’t forget the insurance companies. The way policies are written, equivalent buildings would have to been built. Which means, basically building new towers over the sites of the old ones (insensitive on so many levels) and not fixing the road layout.

Yep. Should have just dusted-off the old WTC schematic, made a few tweaks to modernize the internal skeleton, and then rebuild the whole damn thing again. Plus add a temporary middle finger to the top, aimed towards Mecca.

"You destroy it; we'll rebuild it. You destroy it again; we'll rebuild it again. And again and again." Just like the Senate and People of Rome. They lost 3 navies before finally crushing Carthage. They refused to give up.

There was a proposal back in 2001 to rebuild them with one extra floor: a mosque, as both a "you can't attack us without destroying one of your own holy places", and as a "we did not let the actions of a few extremists turn us against an entire religion".

Unfortunately, today, even trying to build a mosque several blocks away from the rubble causes a massive uproar, so I think we must have rolled a one on our "save vs. intolerance" roll...

There was a proposal back in 2001 to rebuild them with one extra floor: a mosque, as both a "you can't attack us without destroying one of your own holy places", and as a "we did not let the actions of a few extremists turn us against an entire religion".

Unfortunately, today, even trying to build a mosque several blocks away from the rubble causes a massive uproar, so I think we must have rolled a one on our "save vs. intolerance" roll...

Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.

The problem was that the WTC schematic was inherently not as secure as the new tower design. The Freedom Tower will have a concrete-reinforced base to protect it against car bombs, reinforced staircases and sprinkler systems (which all shut down after the "core" of the original buildings were severed by the planes on 9/11, leading to uncontrolled fires above the impact area), more staircases with dedicated staircases for firemen (on 9/11, firemen going up slowed people going down, leading to many casualties

>Wasn't military spending one of the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire?

It was a lack of military spending and an inability to adapt their military to cope w/ changes in military technology (the development of the composite bow by the horsemen of Central Asia) which resulted in the downfall of the Roman Empire, that and dry-rot from w/in due to a dis-affected population (a huge majority of which were slaves) which wearied of being manipulated so as to make the wealthy and powerful, we

Yes it collapsed but that was ~600 years after the defeat of Carthage, so that had nothing to do with it. The ultimate reason Rome collapsed was due to wasteful spending on extravagance (welfare, stadium events, monuments galore) which led to a devaluation of their currency to try to keep the whole edifice propped up, and an eventual loss of the middle class as they became a feudal system of serfs and lords. Their economy was a shambles.

How flawed could the building have been? The blew up a bomb in the basement, and it kept standing. They flew a fully fueled 747 into each tower resulting in a couple of the biggest fires New York had seen in over a Century, and the damn things stayed up long enough for nearly everybody to get out. I'll hire that architect.

He looked like his kids had been killed, and I suppose they were. He was talking about how it was actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the biggest plane at the time. Building it to withstand a 747 would have been the equivalent of designing to withstand the impact of the Space Shuttle.

He looked like his kids had been killed, and I suppose they were. He was talking about how it was actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the biggest plane at the time. Building it to withstand a 747 would have been the equivalent of designing to withstand the impact of the Space Shuttle.

I did see that, and I thought he got the raw end of the deal.

It was designed to withstand a fully fueled 707 at 250 knots speed (maximum legal speed under 10,000 feet). This accounts for accident scenarios, airplane lost in fog, etc. Design request was partly due to a B-25 Mitchell bomber that actually hit the Empire State Building in similar conditions, impaled itself in the building.

It actually withstood the impact of a fully fueled 767 at over 300 knots speed (maximum ramming speed). It remained standing for several hours.Neither tower toppled over immediately after impact.In both towers, people below the impact point were able to exit, and rescue workers were able to enter and try to evacuate the injured.Had there been enough helicopter support, it might have been possible to extract some of the people above the impact point.It was not able to withstand the impact plus the fire, including failure of the fire pipes and the division of fire personnel between multiple damaged buildings.

Had it been an accidental impact from a cargo 707 in the fog, I doubt that the stricken tower would have been left unscathed, needing only paint, windows and new carpeting. It would have taken a partial to complete rebuild of that damaged tower, and there would undoubtedly have been deaths / entrapment for occupants.

In short, show me a building that can take the impact of a modern airliner without being completely obliterated immediately. Then show me one that is still standing after being on fire for several hours. I think the original WTC did a great job of staying upright as long as it did. A design failure would have been the top third landing on the street, while the people were still figuring out which way to run.

In fact, thinking back, the building's foundation was strong enough to withstand a truck bomb in a van, several years prior. So I personally think the designer got it right, it's just that the terrorists raised the stakes higher than ever imagined.

I am willing to give the mountains of political crap a pass in this case. I believe everyone involved saw the necessity of getting every last detail right.This site through duty, not choice, has changed from a symbol of economic prominence to an iconic symbol of free men everywhere.If it stands for eternity, it won't be long enough.

Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.

I think the long dragout time is symbolic of how America has lost its ability to get things done in a quick fashion. (And why people turn to India or China or Russia instead.) Too much bureaucracy and second-guessing and twiddling of thumbs.

Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.

The original WTC was planned in 1958 and the dedication ceremony was in 1973. Groundbreaking was in 1966.8 years planning and re-planning, 7 years building.* Roughly similar to the current WTC project.

Wikipedia:In 1958, Rockefeller established the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association (DLMA), which commissioned Skidmore, Owings and Merrill to draw up plans for revitalizing Lower Manhattan. The plans, made public in 1960, called for a World Trade Center to be built on a 13-acre (53,000 m2) site along the East River, from Old Slip to Fulton Street and between Water Street and South Street...After a year-long review of the proposal, the Port Authority formally backed the project on 11 March 1961.[11]...In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property at the World Trade Center site.[72] The Ajax Wrecking and Lumber Corporation was hired for the demolition work, which began on 12 March 1966 to clear the site for construction of the World Trade Center.[73]Groundbreaking was on 5 August 1966,

The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on 23 December 1970, with 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurring later on 19 July 1971.[79] The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970, and into the South Tower in January 1972.[91] The buildings were dedicated on 4 April 1973; Tobin, who had resigned the year before, was absent from the ceremonies.[92]

I think a 1,300' tall office building shaped like Maurizio Cattelan's L.O.V.E sculpture -- preferably in gold -- would have been both a National Symbol of defiance against those who would harm us and a proud display of the typical NYC manner of greeting.

If it's not habitable, it's not a building, per se, ie, it's not "the tallest building in NYC".

Maybe the tallest non-supported construct. Tallest building is many months off.

NOT news for nerds btw. I've been doing drafting and architecture for over 20 years,this is just NEWS. If we start 'building out' the definition of nerd... we're are just goingto have to call this a "news site". You can't say there are "nerds" in every occupation,where are the molecular gastronomists? That's nerdy. Where are all my tune

Clearly Slashdot is news for the kind of nerd who nerds out about what kind of news is for nerds.

I come to Slashdot because every once in a while I find one insightful, useful comment that changes my whole understanding of a technical issue. Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

It took me years to adjust to the towers not being there. While I was still in high school, only a few blocks from the site, the bare foundation became a part of what was normal and it was incorporated into my sense of home. After graduating, I left New York. Whenever I returned, I saw the foundation, and it was still a part of home, a part of New York that was the same whenever I visited. When I returned last year, it was startling to not see the bare foundation, and see a building under construction.

You've got the memories of all the people who died next door, and if there's one thing that would get a terrorist excited it would be the idea of knocking down the tower *again* after we went to the trouble to rebuild the thing.

You're going to need one heck of an immunity to superstition and a lot of faith to not at least consider these things.

I'm really curious to know how much occupancy they have lined up and whether the rates reflect any of this.

This would have been a cool set of buildings on any other site. As a replacement for the WTC it's kind of lame. I wouldn't the buildings rebuilt has they'd been. But I would have liked something comparable. Perhaps the twin towers had a high vacancy rate and they saw no way of filling all that space?

It is extremely embarrassing to see how long it took to get the building to this point. As others have mentioned it speaks to the sad state of affairs in this country. Almost anywhere else it would have taken a

It seemed to be barely moving for months but this spring they must have really picked it up a notch because suddenly it's been growing fast! To me the old WTC is so reminiscent of the dotcom days. I had just moved to NYC and was for a small tech firm. Always loved perusing the O'reilly books at the WTC Borders on some down time. Nice to see them finally bringing it back, definitely gives me some optimism even if the USA and the world will never be the same again. But better or worse I'm packing up and heading to the west coast next year anyways. If you're not working in finance or maybe some wing of the entertainment industry there's nothing for you in New York anymore. All that crap about "Silicon Alley" is just hype. The only people hiring are hedge funds who want some kind of shady derivative algorithms coded up...but anyways, at least the WTC is back in one form or another.

The new tower is roughly the same size and dimensions as the old North Tower. The roofline is exactly the same and the footprint is exactly the same. The main differences asthetically are the antenna is now an architectural spire, the building is glass-clad, and the corners have a facet that tapers upward. Structurally, the base is made from reinforced concrete, the stairwells and elevator shafts are surrounded by a couple of feet of concrete instead of drywall, and the structure is a bit more redundant with a reinforced concrete core. The fireproofing is still spray-on, so still not up to 1930s standards there:)

We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."

Yes, because that sort of thing tends to work so well against those who want to be martyrs in the first place...

Depends on how you measure buildings: do you count architectural spires or antenna, or just measure to the top of occupied floors? As noted in TFA, there's a lot of arguments about these factors when comparing building heights. Personally, as an engineer, I'm more interested in the height as measured by occupied floors, because the rest is just fluff. Anyone can add a mast (either non-functional, as in the case of spires, or functional, in the case of antennas) to the top of some building. In fact, some structures don't even qualify as buildings, as they're just giant antenna (such as the one in North Dakota that's the tallest structure in North America), but to me a giant antenna is nowhere near as significant an engineering accomplishment as a giant building, so the antennas slapped on top should be ignored when comparing heights.

I don't know about you, but I find the ass-groping, crevice-penetrating symbol of the TSA much more unpleasant. I can ignore a phallus in the sky, but a finger in my ass is a completely different matter.

Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"

You watch too much television. Protip: Never use the phrase "the terrorists" when referring to a specific organization you damn well know the name of. It makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

In reality, the goal of Bin Laden was to disrupt our financial system, which he did fairly well, and destroy our way of life. But nevermind that for a moment, let's get to what's wrong with your statement.

So,you believe the goal of "the terrorists", AKA Al Queda or Quesadilla or whatever,